tv [untitled] June 12, 2013 2:00am-2:31am PDT
sustain able street. and this ordinance was adopted by the board of supervisors to address the negative impacts of large vehicles being warehoused on the streets in san francisco. and it is not a city-wide program, and it is only in effect where it signs are posted in the areas that are approved by you the mta board. >> this legislation continues to allow oversized vehicles to park on some san francisco streets, but gives the mta an additional tool to address the issues related to the over night parking on the focus location specific basis, and will the oversized vehicles cause issues which is often in the near residential areas. and to refresh your memory you will know from the previous presentations but we did, a sampling of streets in san
francisco, to look for these oversized vehicles, we should define as longer than 22 feet and taller than 7 feet and these have a location that we identified some of them where they are located and as you can see, they are concentrated along the east side, and as well as the west side and? along the golden gate park. and of those, there are over 450 of them that we surveyed and 51 percent of them consist of trucks, trailers, and these trucks, trailers and buses that are left on the street. but 40 percent of them were campers. and as percentage of them we do know that there is some folks, actually living in them. and of the (inaudible) that we sampled we looked at the registration of where the
vehicles are coming from and 64 percent of them, or of these large vehicles were registered to addresses in san francisco. however, only 20 percent of them were registered to addresses within a quarter mile where they are parked. so, it is very obvious that san franciscans are using the streets to warehouse their vehicles and not in their own neighborhoods basically, and so these are the vehicles that are causing a lot of the negative impacts to surround the residents in a particular neighborhood. so, the two groups of streets that we are proposing before you, for consideration, is basically taken from the original list of locations that we have on file which is long
standing locations with negative impacts and long term parking over night parking and different parts of the city. and we are choosing these two groups as the first two roll out locations. and for several reasons. one is that as i mentioned during the original list and secondly, to have a long-standing history and with preventing problems and the groupings also allowed and facilitates the installation and logistics to group together in two areas and they help us to do our evaluation because it is the large enough sample where we decertain the certain trends and signs that are posted and they also help us do the notification because there are more concentrated instead of being geographically scattered. we do want to asspecifically
point out that this program is not meant to target people who are living in campers and other vehicles. the police code. >> i am sorry, mr. yee, let me interrupt you. >> members of the public we cannot tolerate feedback like that during the meeting and if it continues we will contact the deputies and have you removed. no more comments like that. thank you. >> thank you. mr. yee. >> for several reasons, firstly, the san francisco police code already prohibts living in vehicles. and each of these locations that we are proposing to have the signs installed are basically coincide with a lot of the areas that are currently already signed for the prohibition of the habitation of vehicles and so it will be exchanging one sign for the other. a lot of the vehicles that
people are actually hab taiting in, will fall below the threshold for the dimensions that we have legislated for the board of supervisors so if someone is in a vehicle that is smaller than a 22 by seven and they will fall through the net. and we also as a mentioned previously, over half of the vehicles are not the type that people are actually are living in. we have committed ourselves to work closely with the mayor's office, and also not concrete
at this point, up to this point. so it will be difficult, for example, to leave it or the entire blocks or blocks of streets to try to isolate the vehicles who may be impacted and so now that we have the specific lists of locations it will be a lot easier to do the focus out reach >> and what is the intent of the out reach? is it to assist the people in not being targeted by the
parking regulations? ? i am worry that had we are talking about a vulnerable population here and i want to make sure that our out reach are not just letting them know that we are going to ticket them and actually help them and not just... >> right. >> you will hear that there are and will be efforts made to kind of look for alternative locations. for some of the folks to slow the vehicles while they are accessing city services so that is one aspect and i think that the other is us working with the police very closely. we want to look and isolate, those types of violations that are given if they are given there for this particular violation. so that we can flag for the violation or the individuals become in danger of having the vehicles booted and so forth. and so that we can do and we can notify the hope and the
teams so that they can step in and do, do, intervention, measures. >> okay. >> and i just, sorry. >> go ahead. >> i understand this to be a pilot program and you said that in three months, we will evaluate where we are and decide where to go from there. at the end of that three month period is one of the options to undo this and that will stay effect and we will determine if we will go further with this. >> i think that the out come will be depending on you and the board of supervisors as policy-making bodies depending on how the out come comes out and what the impacts are. >> members? other questions? >> i see that we have been joined by beth and dusky from hope. is there anything that you would like to say and anybody have any questions on the board for mr. dusty? >> no. >> all right. i think that we have...
>> good afternoon, our responsibility is to initiate, changes and how we respond to homelessness and poverty in san francisco. and so, this is an issue that as motivated by individuals who live and parts of town that have a lot of oversized vehicles, and from going on, many times, i can tell you that their boats and trailers and construction vehicles and i think that these are not vehicles that people are residing in but unquestionablely there are people that live in their vehicles and people and families that i have worked with, that leave in vehicles, and it is extremely challenging and we know that as tough as it is to get muni to run on time it is tougher to house the low income people in a city like ours where the rent is expensive and so we have looked at this as a challenge and an opportunity to try to better understand the population of people who are vehicularly housed and how can we respond
to them and in where resources are limited and our shelters are fairly full from 97 to 99 percent with the exception of providenc e. we know that it is closed since 2008 for section eight, since, 2001. and so, some of the basic tools that you would like to see, be available are in short supply. and so in working with the san francisco hot team and the homeless out reach team and we have thought about, one of the major barriers which is, for someone that has been living in their vehicle, how likely would that person or family be to give that vehicle up? with the uncertainty of going in to a shelter and wondering if that is the right decision? so, we have indicated and the health department has worked on an mlu with city storage and treasure island, that we would try at least for three to five instances to store a vehicle as long as someone is participating in case management.
and so the principal here is that if you are familiar with the sf hots team, that the stabilization rooms and so for individuals who have been long term, homeless or who have chronic situations or illnesses often times we will move them into a stabilization room and so that will be an sr room in the building with the services associated with it and that individual will not be paying rent they may not be connected to an income such as ssi or ga or other support and as long as they participate two to three times a week with the social worker or the case manager they are progressing on a road and the room is paid for. they do not garner tendency and that is a down side of it but we looked at the possibility of dedicating stabilization rooms for individuals that wanted to participate and start, with three to five and then see what the interest is and then go from there.
because of the uncertainty on when this program was going to be initiated, we have hired through the hot team and supported pcos who have helped us to put the notices where the individuals might be living and even at first blush we have a handful of people that might come out and what is telling is that all of these individuals were ploid and security guards and working in low aged position and that they have lost their foot hold in turns of hold of these and so these were individuals who were going to work and leaving their vehicle and these are the people that will be impacted by these changes. so there is a commitment from the hope office and from the sf hot team to work in a closed
fashion. and we do have it to increase it and we currently have 240 and they are fairly full and from your standpoint as a implementing agency to a policy that is going to require us to do more to respond to people's human and housing needs, certainly your advocacy to support us in the initiatives that we have and so at this, it may create some overlap, where you better understand, what we are trying to do, when the budget proposals is to extend the first, and we need more resource to respond to individuals who come forward and say, yes, i am willing to try to do something different and to get on a path of permanent housing as long as i don't have to forgo the asset that i have. >> thank you. members? any questions? >> not at this point?
and we thank you you guys for working with our office and former supervisor chu to develop this pilot program and our residents, especially those by the park which so ever by lincoln and the great highway, have worked hard for years. we urge you to approve this pilot program. >> thank you >> and i understand that we have somebody from supervisor cohen's office here? >> thank you. >> >> good afternoon, directors, and commissioners, i'm megan, the legislative aid to cohen. my office is aware that after studying potential locations where this restriction will be implemented, the sfmta has the largest number of oversized
vehicles. approximately, 150 vehicles, or 33 percent of the oversized vehicles, that were evaluated. they are magneted for dumping and bliet and criminal activities and makes the parking difficult for the residents of the neighborhoods. supervisor cohen was a co-sponsor which was approved by the board of supervisors at the end of last year, during the debate and the consideration of the legislation, we heard from dozens of neighborhood groups and constituents and merchants about the negative impacts that the vehicles have on the community. despite what has been initiate it is not anti-homeless, our objective was not to target the housed. we worked with the homelessness and the sfmta and the mayor's office of housing opportunity and partnership or hope to conduct the out reach, evaluating the number of people that live in their cars. or excuse me in their vehicles.
>> securing additional parking spaces on treasure island are for the park for those who enter traditional housing and better coordinating the service and transitional housing units this legislation will have a tremendous positive impact on the quality of life for residents in district ten and i urge you to please support it. >> thank you miss hamilton. >> i know that we have a number of public comment. >> we are going to limit it to two minutes, there are some of you who may not have commented for the board before and there is a display timer on the podium and it is two minutes when you get down to 30 seconds left you will hear a quiet tone and out of time a louder town and i will politely cut you off. and would you like to call public comment? >> nick laous kileron. penny white. >> my name is nick from the coalition of homelessness and i
am here to ask you not to approve this plan and this is an exaggeration of the original, and over 18,500 feet of signs will be installed and that is over 150 signs and it costs over in total over $100,000 and it covers over 16 miles of road. and so it should be noted that the money for the signage alone could be used to house 30 people for three months straight and i have these letters here for you and these packets and if we outline our proposal, basically what we want is we want the implementation of the original plan at the least, obviously we don't know if there is a plan b approved at all. and it will effect, and because it can and do things such as find them. and lead to the vehicle being towed and impounded and the loss of one of their last remaining assets. >> we want the original plan to be followed because that is the one that was vetted through the democratic process and we don't think that or i don't think that we should let business and
just local housed residents be able to dominate the implementation of this plan. and it should not be a back door process, it sthud be one that is brought through the public as it was as the original process was which did not have all of these 18,000 feet of signs added on to it. and as board members, i know that you are here to serve all residents of san francisco and that includes the people living in these vehicles and i believe that we must seriously invest in them as we are with houses and those with higher incomes and as we are hearing, there are only a month left for out reach, and which will be very concentrated in that month to give the people any services which i don't think is enough time and i think that it is worth noting that poverty is not a choice and our response to poverty, however, is and we must not choose to marginalize these residents and it effects children and workers and effect you and effect... >> thank you.
>> thank you. >> alviar, penny white. cecil, gataguard? >> good afternoon members of the board and the community, and my name is ruben and i am with the coalition of homelessness and as an organization we have stood strongly against the ban on oversized vehicles because we saw right through it as another displacement method attempting to remove poverty and homelessness as opposed to addressing the root causes and the cycle of pieces of legislation, by restricting the parking in particular areas, the mta will force a concentrated parking of larger vehicles and others and since the mta has already posted signs in many years prohibting parking over night. this will move to be nothing more than a displacement and policy of some of san francisco's poorest community
members. it is unlikely that people living in the vehicle will simply leave town, poor community members ever forced to stay near their support sit temperatures includeleing their jobs to survive. the mta should limit it where safety is concerned such as parking at an intersection or blocking visibility. >> if there are no trafng concerns then there no justification for banning them because poor people own them. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> penny white, cecil, gataguard and kelley kutler. >> good afternoon, my name is penny. and i'm a volunteer at the coalition on homelessness. vy never done this before. i also wanted to point out that this legislation would fine people $100 for parking over night in areas where it is prohibited if people are unable to pay their fine they face a
warrant but would likely lose their mobile home because if it were towed it would be too expensive to retrieve. often times this is the only asset that the person or family has left. this will leave them completely homeless. the proposal to store, 2 to 4 campers in treasure island where it will not address the negative consequences if this legislation is passed. there is simply not enough capacity in homeless programs. and in homeless programs and in the space for far more four campers would be needed. the mta has both the power and the responsibility in regard to enforcement of this new ban. that means that mta is now responsible for the lives and safety of poverty stricken people living in their vehicles, we hope that you will own this responsibility and work with us to reduce the negative impacts that this legislation will have on the most vulnerable members of our
community. thank you for your time. >> sally cutler and scott. hi, good afternoon, my name is cecilia and i am with the coalition on homelessness thousands of san franciscans have been misplaced as real estate speculators take advantage of tenants, there is one for every 5.2 homeless individuals, wait for family shelter in san francisco, exceeds 6 months. and people are living in the vehicles because there is no affordable housing. in san francisco, the wait list for section 8 was last opened for 1 month in 2001. the wait list for public housing closed february first, 2010. (inaudible) out reach to vehicle housed people and they have resulted in housing not
one person was offered housing because no housing is available. with no increase in affordable housing many people are forced to move into their vehicles and as have you heard and will continue to hear that many of the people living in the vehicles are working, many people have disabilities, and many are born and raised in san francisco, and many have already tried to find resources through the city that either did not qualify or had a horrible experience with those services. mta continued enforcement of over night banning of large vehicles will only increase our collective that is homelessness and adding to the trauma and suffering the experience